Agree with everything in your post. -- Hugo ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Hain <alh-i...@tndh.net> Sent: 2015-06-01 - 16:20 To: 'Hugo Slabbert' <h...@slabnet.com>, 'Matt Palmer' <mpal...@hezmatt.org> Subject: RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture
> Hugo Slabbert wrote: >>>> snip >> >> On this given point, though: Facebook -ne generic hosting platform > > True, but it does represent a business decision to choose IPv6. The relevant > point here is that the "NEXT" facebook/twitter/snapchat/... is likely being > pushed by clueless investors into outsourcing their infrastructure to > AWS/Azure/Google-cloud. This will prevent them from making the same business > decision about system efficiency and long term growth that Facebook made due > to decisions made by the cloud service operator. > > From my perspective, most of this conversation has centered on the needs of > the service, and tried very hard to ignore the needs of the customer despite > Owen and others repeatedly raising the point. While the needs of the service > do impact the cost of delivery, a broken service is still broken. Personally > I would consider "free" to be overpriced for a broken service, but maybe > that is just me. > > In any case, if the VM interface doesn't present what looks like a native > IPv6 service to the application developer, IPv6 usage will be curtailed and > IPv4 growing pains will continue to get worse. > > Tony > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP/MIME digital signature
